“Can empathy be brutal? Yes. It can be brutal. It can be brutal upon the lover and the loved. Love is an emotion that stirs night into day, until the star we carried in our minds, is lingering above our drunken faces. We will deny love as long as possible, until it begins to hunt for us.”
“A 21st century’s losing touch with empathy is when we continually utter the two words, ‘Be yourself’. Has no one ever considered, or rather, has everyone forgotten what it means to identify with someone else? It is a tragic world where people are only themselves, and no one can be alike another, or admit to being like another, or ever venture to say to another, ‘I am just like you’. It is a loss of empathy in this respect, for to simply want to be like oneself is to create distance, and thus, there is no unity in this. To be like oneself, will never make such a selfish person want to be like another, even though, in truth, they are like everyone.
Do we call such words as ‘Be yourself’ as ‘nobility’? How pathetic. How bizarre. And how needless.”
“Love directs itself not to sympathy, though to empathy, as empathy deals itself in the heart. Sympathy deals itself upon the body. Sympathy has a method of believing a wound to be as any other wound. A government cannot comprehend a population’s individual wounds, and will take to simplification of all manner of artistry. That is, the needs, the cravings, of the creator, always come in contact with Individualism. Sympathy is the act of believing one need to be as any other need. To look upon an industry of music, and hearing one song as identical to the other; this is the work of sympathy. To look upon a world of culinary arts, and taste one cuisine as identical to the other, though merely focusing on the brand; this is the work of sympathy. Empathy will target, and will target specifics and details; it will be precise, and will occupy itself in one’s pain, in one’s specific desires, by not believing one to be the same as another.”
“Criticism drives the life onward, and to believe oneself immune to it, makes one not the living, fleshy form. Instead, it makes the life without life, and without beauty, and without humanity. It makes one envious of everything, as corrupted as such a soul shows itself. Empathy is not always followed by consolation, because empathy is the act of dipping one’s feet in the shoes of another. The empathetic one will feel how that suffering person’s feet are dragging. Though, if consolation is not the treatment, and harsh criticism is the treatment, it is that empathy is working for how it works. Empathy targets the pain of an individual, and simply treats it for how it should be treated. Consolation and softness do not always benefit the well-embedded scar that bleeds beneath the seemingly healed flesh.”
Love, I’ll not ever lose this hold, Among your hair, there are scoops of debris, And among your cheeks, there are flowers agleam, While among your lips, there are words stilled and silent, As your chin was dipped in ashes, And beholds a pale hue for myself to see.
Start weeping, and I will lose myself, Your form is rotted and stilled, And still do I see the colors that surround, Your naked self, When I had dipped my feet in your honey. Oh, beauty! You have such a worldly complexion!
I ache, and I break, when the world takes us both. Love finally crashes its own waves on the shoreline, As I lean down to kiss you, For but a moment in utter bliss. Complete me, my torment and my woe, My dream, my sky. My endless goodbye.
“Comprehension, in the face of love, is the single ingredient for love’s timely unity. Comprehension is the offering of empathy. Empathy is offered for the vulnerable someone, and to ‘comprehend’ the vulnerability of someone, through empathy, is to achieve that unity. A man attempts to comprehend a woman, and fails through incompletion of that comprehension. A woman attempts to comprehend a man, and only succeeds through a failed analysis, because curiosity was her only motive. A man sees insects. A woman sees giants. A man must look downwards to see a reflection in a puddle, or in a woman’s eyes. A woman must look only forward to see a reflection through a mirror. Though, when a woman looks upwards, she sees the thing she is curious over. The face of a man. The face of God.
A man possesses an X and Y chromosome, with the X chromosome of him being what he fails in terms of comprehension to a woman, in terms of incompletion to that comprehension. His Y chromosome allows him to rise, both of sexual and egotistical nature.
A woman’s dual X chromosomes, creates both nature’s of love and lust. A woman’s nipples are meant to stick further out from her abdomen, when she’s not pregnant, to symbolize the nurturing, the compassion, and again, the empathy. It is to say that a man will first notice the nipples, the breasts, or rather, the ‘zone of attraction’ when she is at the ‘right weight’ to ever be attractive. This is to say that in a ‘world of lust’, a man will be forced to see what sticks further out than the nipples, and that is, the so-called ‘love-handles’, and the belly, when she is not pregnant. This is to say that such a ‘world of lust’ is a world of use, is a world of sculpture, upon flesh, where the ‘slaves’ are still slaves, though are ‘freed slaves’. When a man sees the breasts before the abdomen, when the woman is not pregnant, a man notices objective attraction, and we then live in a ‘world of love’, not lust.
What was written above, lastly, ties the very thing between men and women, and that is the X chromosome. A woman’s breasts are the symbols of compassion and empathy. Connection and unison, and a man has nipples, too. Love connects, not lust, objectively speaking.”
Q: You have mentioned that ‘failure’ is indeed what a person these days has said to be a wrong in even mentioning; that people these days have forgone even the mentioning of the word, and that this is also a wrong. Will you elaborate?
A: “Failure” is a motive. To not mention the word makes a human more afraid of failure, and more in liking of success than ever in history. We are meant to be depressed through failure, because that depression makes us more likely to never commit to that action ever again. Especially if such an action has created harm to either ourselves or to others, we should name the action a failure, and never attempt it, again. We, as humans, wish to be away from failure, and never call a “failed attempt” a failure, and from this, we are more alike the dead, then with the living.
Q: How are we, as failing humans, more alike the dead, than the living?
A: As living humans, we are here to accept insults and belittlement, as much as possible. We grow strong through the insult, when it hurts. When we discourage the insult, we grow afraid of pain, and also failure. When a human has died, a dead human cannot be criticized. It is simply impossible. Or rather, it is possible, of course, but it is a waste of breath. To imagine the dying father, who has a son who had perhaps forty years to speak his own mind, now has waited until the bitter end to say everything, would be cowardly. And it is for this reason, when in comparison to fear, that such a failure would be a motivation for life, not a word to escape from, and avoid. Fear is an incredible motivator.
Q: And finally, you have mentioned that the living human is rather, the dead human, because they are more in comparison to dead, when they have escaped from criticism. Will you elaborate?
A: Indeed, as a dead human, though with a beating heart, such people have run away from failure, and have seen failure as a merciless word. They will say, “Do not see your actions as failures.” Though, such a mentality only breeds a mind that will ignore failure, itself. A mistake is only a synonym to the word “failure”, for both must have the consequences to brave with responsibility. The dead person has no responsibility. The live person does have infinite responsibility. The dead person is carried to their grave, with limp limbs. There is no more strength in them, now that they are dead. What is the live one, if they act the same? They are the weak and dependent person, objectively speaking, when in comparison to the dead. As a dead human, with a beating heart, they are praised for their successes, and never criticized. This is to say that the more a person clears themselves of criticism, the more they clear themselves of life and humanity.
“Change is the opposite of contentment. Contentment is the opposite of hatred and discontent. In such a world as today, where there is a yearning for love and for hatred’s disappearance, no accomplishment of love will ever be made, when there is constant change. Constant change, multiple differences, will create the limited hatred that forms the process of decline among the human. Love makes the human thrive, as such occurred for two thousand years, because love promotes limitlessness. Hatred promotes decline, and an endless promotion of change creates a downfall. From this, Darwin becomes more-so the prophet over Christ, when he ‘predicts’ that the strongest will survive.”
Q: You say that sympathy is the only utilization of any form of government?
A: It is correct.
Q: Why is that?
A: There used to be a time when the common American would empathize, not sympathize, with their nation. Understand, this is purely a psychological argument. This was during the time when only men were allowed to storm on foreign soil, during a heated war. Psychologically speaking, men went to war to “free their lands” and this means to keep the weak free; that is, to keep women free. Empathy was in their hearts, and such battle cries were there for inspiration. What America’s founding fathers fought for, was for the government to fear its people, not for the people to fear their government. When the people benefit the nation, the people love the nation, through empathy. When the government benefits the nation, the government cannot understand the individual, or individualism, so therefore, the common American is neglected of their ability, which relates to their ability to work and prove themselves.
Q: You mean that when a population of people use empathy for their nation, then the people are seeing the nation as a one?
A: That is correct. A population of people who see their nation as a one, will be the same as an individual viewing another individual as a one, and never part of a group. A nation’s government, whose leadership views its people as a one, will again, never see its people for individuals. Individualism is left to die, and the government becomes the one.
Q: And this means that the people will, though unknowingly, empathize with their government?
A: For the same reason that a child will look after his or her own mother, in return for the shelter that the mother had offered, by her home, then such a government is therefore, seen as a parental figure. Purely psychological, again, and for a population of people to see their nation, not its leaders, as offering shelter, will mean for the population to empathize and love their nation. This all forms the difference between submission to a government, and submission to a nation, and its individuals. The government would have no choice but to submit to its army of citizens.
Q: And if the people submit to their nation’s leaders?
A: That would be the same as such a nation of individuals remaining as children. Every American that loves animals more than people, subconsciously believes in the innocence that they, themselves, long for, by way of being ignorant. To know nothing, and let a war rage on, or to allow their home to burn, and not react, is epitome of American apathy. As children, and their leaders as a “parental figure” means for such Americans to never mature and become as intelligent as their leaders.
Q: And to the men who protect their nation, or protect their women?
A: When men no longer protect women, it is a singularity of people, a neutrality of people and their inspiration, to ever want to be raised to the height of the nation’s leaders; and the men who once protected women, now protect themselves. It is psychological, because when men protected women, soldiers protected their nation; and this means that men kept their women free, and soldiers kept their land free. The fertility of a woman and her place as a mother, and a nation with its place as a Motherland, makes freedom necessary for the nation and its people, not for the leaders.
Q: Anything else?
A: The basis behind Socialism and its creation of poverty is a war between development and poverty. This is a war between the Primate Brain and the Reptilian Brain. A war between the primate and the reptile. A war between development and underdevelopment. A war between the mind and the heart. A war between leadership and Liberalism. A war between the rich and the poor, as it has always been, for millennia. Two singularities, with one who are rich and the other who are poor, where the rich grow taller and the poor die off.
“Has humanity forsaken the value of love? It is only the two paths where a human must choose to journey; and those two, are with the first remaining in loneliness, while the second is a path of unity. To see the self as only able to know the self, is contradictory to what naturally occurs. It is denial that creates the torment to a problem continually ignored; and when it is ignored, it is further embedded. Are we, as humans, willing to ignore fault, and believe ‘criticism’ to be ‘sheer negativity’? Is that a path that seems noble enough, so that one who takes the path forsakes the friend or the spouse, who could hold enough clarity to see the issue as an issue, and implement sense? ‘Sense’ has no place within discovery, this is true, though to the sensible mind, there is that unity of telling the faulted one, ‘This is wrong, so do no longer take anymore action’.”